Crysis 3, Winning The Red Dot Award, Here's Why

Crysis 3 has been awarded the Red Dot Design Award 2013, but why is it that Crysis 3 is the winner? The Red Dot Design Award has three distinct categories a game needs to excel in before it can be judged, product design, concept design, and communication design. This year the judges clearly thought that Crysis 3 did each of these well, and it's not that surprising when you look at the evidence.

Other than how high you jump and how long it takes to kill people its the same boring first person perspective.None of them deviate much as far as weapon variety other than the energy sword or G hammer, i will admit halo is the most different but not by much.

They also don't have good enough stories to set them apart in that category either.They all share that same gun turret sequence in every FPS. They all have that one section where you have to do silent takedowns. The level design in those games are all equally bad.

Crysis is a pure crap story/story-telling wise and after first game's sandbox play, it became pretty bad, boring at gameplay also. But nano-suit is/was something else; after playing crysis 1 at the time, for a while I felt the lack of nano-suit at other shooters. I was thinking what would it be like if I was wearing a nano-suit in this(random) game? :P

At least C4 won't be held back by current gen consoles. C1 was going somewhere great. C2 was going to be on the island, you could tell by the ending. Then EA ordered Crytek to go console, despite C1 being a great success on PC alone.

The technical specs of Crysis 3 are very good, but the game is too boring. The first Crysis was amazing, a beatiful sandbox game, with a lot of vehicles and massive battles with various tactical options. What happened Crytek?

Crysis 3 has bad AI, is an easy and boring game. Also its MP is very bland.

I'm playing the first crysis for fourth time, because Crysis 2 and 3 are very disapointing.